"... Johnson and Weld could have a real opportunity this November to run a real race against two of the least-liked presidential candidates in recent history."

...................................................................................................................................................................
The Libertarian Party tries to seize its Trump-sized opportunity

They could nominate a ticket with more executive experience than Trump or Clinton. Is that enough?

By Dara Lind, May 24, 2016

If you want to see an experienced candidate in the White House, you might have a chance to cast a vote in November for a ticket with a combined four terms of experience running governments. But if you care about these things, you might not be interested in voting for the Libertarian Party: the party that could be running such a ticket, but that, as a matter of principle, has the least faith in government at all.

When the Libertarian Party meets in Orlando over Memorial Day weekend, it's likely that its 2012 nominee Gary Johnson will secure the nomination. It's also possible that the preferred running mate of the former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, former two-term Republican governor of Massachusetts William Weld, will be picked for the vice presidential slot.

Neither of these things is by any means assured, but Johnson and Weld could have a real opportunity this November to run a real race against two of the least-liked presidential candidates in recent history.

In a Morning Consult poll released this morning, Johnson gets 10 percent of the vote in a Donald Trump/Hillary Clinton matchup. That's an impressive haul, and one that (if he made it through November) would qualify the Libertarian Party for federal election funding in 2020.

But the all-important number right now is 15 percent. That's the threshold to participate in the fall debates — a standard no third party has met since it was instituted in 2000. The Morning Consult poll shows Johnson isn't there yet. And maybe he wouldn't be able to get there.

As the Libertarian Party tries to figure out how best to take advantage of the opportunity the two major parties appear to be handing them, they're going to face some tough questions about what kind of coalition they could build to get to 15 percent (or more) of the vote — and what kind of libertarians that coalition would be.

Libertarians used to have a home in the Republican Party. Not anymore.

For a couple of generations, many libertarians have considered the Republican Party to be the natural home of their movement. They've been an accepted part of the conservative coalition forged by intellectuals like William F. Buckley in the mid-20th century, then brought to the electoral fore by candidates like Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Republicans don't agree with libertarians on social issues, and many of them are more interventionist on foreign policy than libertarians might like. But for many libertarians, the cost of routinely supporting people who disagreed with them on many issues was worth the benefits: Libertarians had a seat at the table in the Republican Party, and Republican candidates could reliably be counted on to reduce government in at least some regards.

Though the libertarian-Republican alliance has been a happy marriage since the days of the Cold War (when the fight against communism justified foreign intervention on libertarian grounds), in 2016, the Republican Party has nominated the candidate of libertarian nightmares.

Not only does Donald Trump want to expand government in ways that you could describe as "conservative" but not "libertarian" — like deporting all unauthorized immigrants from the US, and temporarily barring Muslims from entry — but he threatens to erode the few victories libertarians have had in the Republican coalition.

"Free trade" had become a consensus Republican ideal? Too bad: Donald Trump wants to reinstitute prohibitive tariffs and trade wars. Republicans were beginning to express concern over government seizure of private lands via eminent domain? Too bad: Donald Trump loves him some eminent domain. Republicans were firmly committed to a "free market" solution on health insurance? Too bad: Donald Trump promises to guarantee health care to everyone, in a bigger, better, shinier way than the Affordable Care Act ever could. (And then there's the promise to expand libel laws and go after publications that criticize him; the apparent disregard for federalism or checks and balances; etc., etc., etc.)

CAN LIBERTARIANS RELY ON SOCIALLY LIBERAL, ECONOMICALLY CONSERVATIVE VOTERS, OR SHOULD THEY COURT THE #NEVERTRUMP REPUBLICANS?

The Libertarian Party could seize the moment to grow — but does it want to?

As long as libertarians had a home in the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party only appealed to a narrow slice of people who described themselves as libertarians. It was too purist for the most practical libertarians (who could just work with Republicans). And it was far too practical for libertarians who believe that the current electoral system is so compromised that participating in it at all is a waste of time.

(Certainly you can try to participate in a system as a way of pointing out it's corrupt — one of the Libertarian Party's 18 candidates for president hasn't registered as a candidate with the Federal Election Commission, because he believes "it lacks constitutional authority" — but it poses certain practical difficulties.)

But if the Republican Party isn't a home for libertarians anymore? That might open up some opportunities.

The timing is good: The "LP" (as it's known, in the same way the Republican Party is known as the GOP) could be on the verge of a breakthrough. After several cycles as one of many minor parties in American politics, it's arguably reached a tier of its own — more robust than the Green and Constitution parties (as well as the other minor parties hovering around the periphery of national politics) while still insignificant in comparison with the Democratic and Republican behemoths.

If the libertarians are serious about taking on Trump, though, they'll need to engage in some dreaded party politics — and at some point, "building a coalition" ends up colliding with "maintaining our principles as a party." That's true in any party — just ask Ted Cruz supporters — but the Libertarian Party particularly has something of a reputation for putting principles first.

Gary Johnson might have a leg up on Republicans with experience — but he hasn't secured the Libertarian nomination yet

One of the themes of Johnson's 2012 campaign was, "Be Libertarian with me, for one election." At the time, the theme made a certain amount of sense — there were certainly plenty of people who weren't excited about Mitt Romney or another four years of President Obama. But it's not surprising that he's recycled the slogan for 2016, because it fits this cycle even better: It's a perfect description of the opportunity a Trump/Clinton campaign poses for the right third-party candidate.



But is Gary Johnson that candidate?

Johnson is certainly the frontrunner going into this weekend's convention. He has the support of the majority of Libertarian Party members (more than 60 percent, according to a survey conducted with the Libertarian National Committee last week), he's won a few straw polls, and insiders think he's likely to get the nod.

All that doesn't mean as much as you think. Unlike most delegates to the major parties' conventions, basically none of the delegates at the Libertarian National Convention are pledged to support a particular candidate. It's entirely possible that the 500 delegates in Orlando will pick someone else.

The field isn't exactly wide open. Of the 17 other candidates running for the nomination, only two are considered "top-tier." (That said, it's not like the Libertarian Party has never bypassed the "frontrunners" entirely and picked a surprise candidate from the back of the pack.) But each of the two major challengers makes a strong case that the party shouldn't nominate Johnson again — and that the party has a better shot at viability if it builds a coalition in a different way.

The most serious challenge to Johnson is posed by Austin Petersen, a 35-year-old activist with a lot of experience at the nexus of the libertarian and conservative movements (including stints at the Koch-funded voter mobilization group FreedomWorks and Judge Andrew Napolitano's show on the Fox Business Network). Petersen's libertarian bona fides are solid, and he's a viable presidential candidate from within the party — something that appeals to some of the delegates. (He was the only non-Johnson candidate to get more than 10 percent of support in the Libertarian National Committee–affiliated poll of members last week.)

Where Petersen really offers a contrast to Johnson, though, is in the electoral coalition he promises to assemble. The theory of Johnson's candidacy is that neither Trump nor Clinton can appeal to socially liberal, economically conservative voters — the traditional libertarian sweet spot, just bigger this cycle than in past years.

If libertarians really want to go after the #NeverTrump conservatives, the biggest electoral hole to fill is the hardcore evangelical Christians Ted Cruz built his coalition around. Those conservatives aren't just economically conservative but socially conservative as well — in fact, many of the highest-profile NeverTrumpers (like Erick Erickson and Glenn Beck) are people who put social conservatism first. They'd be unlikely to warm up to someone like Johnson.

Petersen, meanwhile, is pro-life, which could make him an acceptable candidate to the Ericksons of the world. He's able to speak in the language of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution in a way that appeals to them. (Beck has said that Petersen makes his heart "skip a beat.")

And then there's John McAfee, the founder of the antivirus software company of the same name, who's something between a serious contender and a wild card. McAfee doesn't do that well in internal Libertarian Party straw polls, but he's gotten a lot more press (especially in liberal and "mainstream" outlets) than Petersen has — and almost as much as Johnson.

McAfee is certainly a colorful character — while Gary Johnson was recovering from his 2012 loss, McAfee was on the run from Guatemalan and Belizean authorities who wanted him for questioning in the murder or his neighbor. That makes him an especially appealing subject for those who think he fits a certain stereotype (guns! drugs! encryption!) of what a "wacky libertarian" is supposed to be.



But that wackiness is strategic: McAfee's pitch to the Libertarian Party is that in the age of Donald Trump, they need a candidate who can capture the public's attention. The way McAfee sees it, the Libertarian Party can't get to 15 percent in the polls if they can't get press coverage. Gary Johnson sounds exciting on paper — he climbs mountains and invests in the pot industry! — but he's a pretty boring speaker. McAfee, whatever else you can say about him, is certainly not boring. And who knows, maybe the delegates in Orlando will find that an appealing gamble to take.

Weld would probably be the most experienced VP candidate on a national ticket — but there are some hurdles for him

About 10 days before the Orlando convention, Johnson announced his preferred running mate: William Weld, who served two terms as the Republican governor of Massachusetts in the 1990s.

That's not as presumptuous as it sounds: Other libertarian candidates (including McAfee) have also chosen their preferred vice presidential nominees in advance of anyone actually getting nominated.

Furthermore, even if Johnson does win the nomination, he doesn't actually get to pick his own VP. It's a separate vote at the convention — and there's nothing stopping the delegates from picking Johnson as their presidential nominee and someone other than Weld as their vice presidential nominee. (Hypothetically, the reverse could also happen — the party could nominate a Petersen/Weld ticket, for instance — but it's not clear whether Weld would stay in the VP race if Johnson didn't win the top slot.)

Johnson naming Weld in advance carried some serious benefits. It's caused mainstream pundits to take a second look at the Libertarian ticket — thanks to the whole "more executive experience than either major party has" thing — which could influence pollsters to start listing them among the options in major polls. And Weld could be a substantial fundraising asset — his lobbying clients include casino magnate Steve Wynn. (There have been rumors that Charles Koch would donate millions of dollars to a Johnson/Weld ticket, but those rumors don't appear to be founded just yet.)

But while the Libertarian Party was able to accept Johnson as a Republican refugee last cycle — despite some deviations from libertarian philosophy (Johnson supports drone strikes, for example) — swallowing a Johnson/Weld ticket might be a bit trickier.

Weld was inarguably too libertarian to stay in the Republican Party: Even in the 1990s, he lost out on the ambassadorship to Mexico because Sen. Jesse Helms objected to Weld's support for broad drug legalization. But that doesn't necessarily make him libertarian enough for the Libertarian Party (he advocated for and signed gun control bills as Massachusetts governor). More importantly, being a "small-L libertarian" (as self-described libertarians who aren't affiliated with the LP put it) doesn't make him loyal to the Libertarian Party itself.

In 2006, Weld ran for governor of New York, in the primaries for both the Libertarian and Republican parties (thanks to the state's "fusion ticket" system, on which a candidate can run on the ballot lines of more than one party). He won the LP nomination, and reportedly promised to stay in the race for the Libertarians regardless of what happened in the GOP race. But when he lost the Republican nomination, he dropped out of the race entirely, leaving the Libertarians to scramble for another candidate, and (apparently) going back on his word.

Just this year, Weld endorsed Republican candidate John Kasich before Kasich dropped out of the race, and he's said that he wouldn't be running for Johnson's VP if Kasich were still a candidate. (That's both insult and injury for Libertarian Party insiders: Kasich signed a law that basically kicked the Libertarian candidate for Ohio governor off the ballot in 2014.)

Weld is trying to assuage delegates' concerns before the convention; shortly after he was named as Johnson's proposed running mate, he wrote a Facebook note addressing some of the questions about his record (though he left out the 2006 New York mess). But the only way to know how persuasive Weld's outreach has been — or how deep the concerns about him run to begin with — is to see what happens in Orlando.

How big is the Libertarian opportunity in 2016, really?

The LP has lucked out on timing. Their convention is happening at a point when both voters and pundits are beginning to realize who, exactly, they're stuck with as major party nominees — and trying to come to terms with a choice between two candidates whose approval ratings are underwater. That's not a bad time to make some news by naming the candidate who could be a third option.

The Libertarian Party has a chance to be the only minor party on the ballot in all 50 states. That is by no means a sure thing — Johnson was on the ballot in 48 states (plus DC) in 2012; the party is trying to get on all 50 states' ballots in 2016, but it's currently only assured a spot on 32. That's better than any other third party, but, again, it's a battle Trump and Clinton won't have to fight.

And because both Johnson and Weld are known quantities to Washington insiders and pundits, they could find themselves getting mentioned on cable news and Sunday talk shows as "the alternative" for voters sick of Clinton and Trump.

At the end of the day, though, the road to the general election travels through the debates. The road to the debates travels through the polls, with their 15 percent threshold. Even in polls that ask about Johnson, like Morning Consult's, he's not getting to 15 percent. And he's not doing nearly as well in polls that don't ask about him.

If you think that there's something of a vicious cycle here — you have to be named in polls to poll well, and you have to poll well to be considered a major candidate, and you have to be a major candidate to be named in polls — you'd be right. But them's the breaks. The question is whether naming a ticket with more gravitas than the two major party tickets combined will be enough to break that cycle.

And this is where it gets tricky. The constituency for gravitas is cable news pundits, not necessarily voters. The appeal of voting for Gary Johnson is that he's an alternative to two unlikable candidates who doesn't inherently seem like a protest candidate — a way to vote for a third party without feeling like you're throwing away your vote. It's difficult to measure how appealing that is, or to game out exactly to whom it appeals.

The fact of the matter is that even as many libertarians feel abandoned by Republicans, most Americans don't actually have consistent preferences for libertarian government. Many of the people who enthusiastically supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 enthusiastically support Donald Trump in 2016 — it turns out that what they liked in Ron Paul wasn't his libertarianism but his opposition to NAFTA (and immigration) and his no-hoots-giving attitude. Indeed, Trump's populist platform is well-tailored to the constituency of voters not represented by either major party — he just happens to be doing it on a major party ticket.

If the Libertarian Party selects Johnson and Weld as its ticket in 2016, it's going to be interesting to see what happens next. They're both extremely well-qualified, but as Rick Perry and John Kasich and Scott Walker can tell you, being an experienced chief executive doesn't open as many doors in a presidential election as you might think.

The challenges facing any third party in American politics are enormous. And from one angle, the 2016 Libertarian ticket might be a way to test the ceiling for a third party — how much support the system allows a minor party to get even in relatively ideal circumstances.

But from another angle, it might be impossible for the Libertarian Party to actually attract a large chunk of the American electorate even by putting forward the most serious, conventional ticket possible. It's the third party of American politics right now, but it isn't necessarily the third party voters actually want.

For a party constantly torn between principle and viability, though, that might not be a terrible lesson to learn.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... there are many potential audiences in the electorate. Politicians and political parties choose which ones to nurture -- and are fairly held responsible for those choices. "

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Most of this column I agree with. But the "tribal whites" that Trump is appealing to weren't created by the Republican Party, they've existed all along. It's just that the Republican Party has swept them in, for the simple reason that the party actors' agendas matched their interests better than the agendas of the Democrats. And that faction's grievances aren't imaginary -- The brunt of the losses suffered by the disestablishment of segregation (and the partial reverse discrimination that is affirmative action) are born by less-educated whites; the better-educated whites have been largely insulated (quite possibly because the policies have been instituted by better-educated whites). Similarly the labor competition due to immigration of poor people from Latin America and the opening of trade with China have mostly hurt the same people, while making cheaper services purchased by better-off people.  In my opinion, the problem with Trump supporters is that much of what they want (or need) can't be given. Immigration from Mexico has dramatically slowed in the past few years; it's quite possible that the significance of Spanish in US culture is declining. Manufacturing is becoming more automated, to the point that China is losing manufacturing jobs. Splashy symbolic actions are possible, but it's hard to see how to effectively reverse the economic and social changes of the past few decades.
   *  The Tribal Whites are the targets of the still extant Southern Strategy. Without the voluntary decision of the GOP to appeal to the heirs of Johnny Reb, they would have been stuck in a very weak (George Wallace) American Party and slowly abandoned the idea that racism and other bigotry was worth counting as an important value in political decision making.
*  ... So, here comes Trump.  From what I've read, Trump's voters aren't too concerned about taxes. They're concerned about getting back the status and economic security "tribal whites" have lost - making 'America Great Again'.  Could Trump be their community organizer? Make them talk and realize what it is they need to regain their place at America's table? Make them realize they don't share much in common with the Koch's.  Much has been written about the tribe's "false consciousness". How appeals to working class consciousness fall deaf on Americans ears because each of us can imagine him or herself getting rich, so we unconsciously adopt the political goals of the rich. "Tax the rich" doesn't motivate us ordinary folks - according to this idea.  Maybe Trump can change that? He'd have to modify his message. Like Roosevelt, he'd have to betray his class.
*  this hidden base, who just supposedly came to the fore :}, represent how crazy 'so-called' conservatism has become. Trump represents the fall of the worthless GOP with its always on-going hate, spin and lies. look at the worthless House of Fools, look at the leaders of both congresses!! what has the GOP done the last 6 years but sit on theirasses!!!!  Trumps bullying, his irrational hate through bigotry and racism, IS the Rep party, with its fake religion through its zealotry.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Republican Party Got the Voters It Deserved
By Jonathan Bernstein, May 25, 2016

My View colleague Megan McArdle thinks people are exaggerating the Republican Party's responsibility for Donald Trump. Blaming the party, she concludes, “is like blaming the weatherman because it’s raining, or an economist for a recession.”

True, most Republican party actors resisted the Trump takeover right up to the point, and in some cases even after, all his nomination opponents dropped out. But the Republican Party nevertheless bears plenty of responsibility for the rise of the reality-show star, and many conservatives have acknowledged shortcomings in the party that Trump exploited. The question is still what exactly paved the way for Trump.

Republicans had encouraged, or at least tolerated, schoolyard taunts and far-fetched conspiracy talk long before Trump's campaign. He started out in Republican presidential politics by accusing the president of not being a U.S citizen, a slur that had been bandied about by many highly visible Republicans. He has now moved on to recycling conspiracy theories from 20 years ago about Hillary Clinton that were promoted at the time by talk-show hosts and Republican members of Congress.

Another part is how Republicans lowered the standards for their politicians. Normally voters might oppose Trump as flat-out unqualified for the job, both by lack of relevant experience and lack of knowledge of government and public affairs. But by giving a megaphone to people like Pat Robertson, Herman Cain, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, Republicans showed their voters what counts as a "normal" Republican presidential candidate -- and it isn't all that different from Donald Trump. Republican voters had many well-qualified candidates in 2016, but they had been taught by their party to ignore normal qualifications, and they did so (1).

That same observation can be made about how Republicans have tolerated and promoted bigotry, forging a path for Trump to go even further. McArdle is wrong to say that the Republicans' “Southern strategy” of the Richard Nixon era was only incidentally pitched to bigots. In 1968, Nixon was clearly and deliberately going after pro-segregation voters abandoned by the Democratic Party, a strategy continued (for example) by Lee Atwater in the 1988 presidential race on behalf of George H.W. Bush (2).

Additionally, I don't think McArdle’s explanation of the interaction of political elites and masses is quite correct. She says: “You don’t put ideas in peoples’ heads; they just grow there.” But voters have all sorts of ideas in their heads: conservative, liberal, some of which would make for good policy, some which would not. Most of those ideas -- healthy or toxic -- are relatively loosely held, and many times no candidate or party elicits responses based on those particular views.

The more some ideas are frozen out of politics -- for better or for worse -- the less they thrive “in peoples’ heads." And, more important, only when politicians highlight those ideas do they escape from peoples' heads and become political issues. Yes, neither Trump nor earlier Republican dog-whistlers created the audience they played to. But there are many potential audiences in the electorate. Politicians and political parties choose which ones to nurture -- and are fairly held responsible for those choices. 

1.  Another point several observers have made is that by constantly attacking a party "establishment" and in some cases the Republican Party in general, some conservatives weakened the ability of their party to resist incursions from outside. 
2.  McArdle is right that crime was and is a real issue. The same can be said of immigration or terrorism. But they don't have to be covers for politics that's primarily about sending signals to bigots on race, ethnicity and religion. 
...................................................................................................................................................................

Quick, develop that new wonder drug!

....................................................................................

"Trump has now clarified beyond any doubt just how much ... we all have to lose from a Trump presidency."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Sanders has said over and over again that Trump is not an option and that he'll be campaigning for the nomination until the convention. Sanders' campaign of late doesn't reflect the best approach (in my opinion), but given what he says, he will see Clinton nominated and begin using his considerable political campaign resources to oppose Trump.
*  The Right To Pollute is one of the most sacred of conservative/libertarian values. Trump is openly pandering to the kingpins of the resource extraction industries (read: Koch Brothers) in hopes of bringing them in on his grift.
*  If Donald would go on "Are you smarter than a fifth grader" and actually correctly answer the questions, I might see him differently. But alas we know he's not smarter than a fifth grader.
*  This morning, CNN had on a number of Trump surrogates scattered across the hour or so I was watching. I was struck how they sound like a North Korean spokesperson talking about the "Dear Leader." Spooky.
*  Donald Trump proudly reminds us that he is hopelessly ignorant and wants to remain that way. Why do any voters want this fool in office?
   *  Because a surprising number of old white men admire swaggering, rather than knowledge, education or intelligence.
*  This old white man is neither wealthy or all that smart. But I do know enough to understand that we have to stop killing this planet. The Trump chumps are not old white guys with money or education. They are just plain old stupid. This excuse of a so called "leader" is telling the stupid people exactly what they want to hear. America is becoming a laughing stock of the rest of the world because its citizens are showing them that our educational system is broken. Rump is dangerous. He will not "make America great again." He will destroy the economy with his brain dead policies. I am not a man of faith but I certainly hope karma runs over this idiot.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump just made an extremely important promise. It’s one of his worst yet.
By Greg Sargent, May 27, 2016

THE MORNING PLUM:

Believe it or not, Donald Trump has now made a very important policy statement. Introducing what he billed as an “energy plan,” Trump promised to “cancel the Paris Climate Plan.” Unlike so much of what comes from Trump on policy, this is a genuinely clarifying moment, with potentially enormous long-term implications.

The near-term political consequences of this will — or should — be that there is now no chance whatsoever that Bernie Sanders will do anything at all on his way out that could imperil party unity in a way that makes a Trump victory more likely. I don’t believe Sanders has any intention to do that, by the way, but this should theoretically render it an impossibility in his mind, because it dramatically increases the stakes for a relatively smooth resolution of the Democratic primaries. Indeed, I believe it’s likely Sanders will see it this way, too.

To get all the details on Trump’s full energy plan, read Brad Plumer’s piece. Trump would pursue a mostly standard-issue GOP agenda of “fewer regulations and more fossil fuel production.” More important, with some reporters wondering what Trump’s actual views are on global climate change, he clarified them: He is utterly indifferent to its existence and would roll back the main things we’re currently putting in place to deal with it.

Trump said that the current environmental challenges that the Obama administration is trying to tackle are “phony.” He added that he would “rescind” the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which would curb carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired power plants, and is key to the U.S.’s ability to meet its commitments as part of the global climate deal. He would withdraw the U.S. from participation in that global accord.

As I’ve reported before, there are complexities that could make it harder than expected for a Republican president — even one as masterfully competent and strong as Trump — to roll back the Clean Power Plan and/or withdraw from the Paris climate deal. But it’s possible that Trump could accomplish one or both of these, which would be a tremendous setback.

This deepens the contrast between Trump and Hillary Clinton. While Clinton would not be as ambitious as Sanders in tackling the climate challenge, the unalterable fact of the matter is that Clinton would preserve and implement the Clean Power Plan and the global climate accord, and Trump would seek to reverse them both.

Sanders has repeatedly described the climate challenge as the single greatest long-term threat we face:

 Bernie Sanders ✔  @BernieSanders
Climate change is the single greatest threat facing our planet.
11:02 AM - 7 Apr 2016

And:

 Bernie Sanders ✔  @BernieSanders
As a father of four and a grandfather of seven, I care about leaving a healthy, livable planet for all of our kids and grandchildren.
1:27 PM - 7 Apr 2016

It’s true that Sanders has criticized the global climate deal as insufficient. But Sanders surely knows that continuing to implement it — and the Clean Power Plan — are infinitely preferable to rolling them back, which could lay the groundwork for catastrophe. Sanders knows that the Paris accord may end up being our best near term hope for building an international effort to tackle the climate problem. Implementing it could allow us to get to the point where dramatic innovations in energy technology begin to make solving the problem a realistic possibility. What’s more, even if the Paris accord is currently not enough, it can be built upon later. The accord is not guaranteed to succeed, but trying to implement and build upon it makes success more likely. Obviously, if our participation in it is canceled, building upon it is no longer possible.

It is often said that Sanders may not help to unify the party because he has “nothing to lose” from a Democratic loss. I think that is wrong — I believe Sanders when he says a Trump presidency is unthinkable. And at any rate, the incentives, if anything, favor Sanders helping to unify the party, in order to maximize his and his movement’s influence going forward. Trump has now clarified beyond any doubt just how much, by Sanders’ own lights, we all have to lose from a Trump presidency. My bet is Sanders will seize on this to make the case to his supporters that the stakes in this election require a full commitment to Trump’s defeat, even if that means supporting a flawed alternative.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"'If you’re a nominee to be President, Americans have said ever since Watergate that you don’t get to hide your tax returns ...'" Good luck, Wyden.

...................................................................................................................................................................
This Idea Would Force Donald Trump to Release his Tax Returns
"None of your business" wouldn't fly anymore
By Martha C. White, May 26, 2016

Senate Democrats think they have a solution to Donald Trump’s reluctance to release his tax returns: Make it a law.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) proposed a bill on Wednesday that would require presidential candidates to release at least three years of tax returns no later than 15 days after their party elects them as nominee.

Wyden took to Twitter to plug his proposal, saying, “If you’re a nominee to be President, Americans have said ever since Watergate that you don’t get to hide your tax returns,” which he accompanied with the hashtag #ReleaseTheReturns.

If a nominee didn’t comply, the law would give the Federal Election Commission the authority to get a candidate’s tax filings from the Treasury Department in order to make them public, according to the New York Times.

Of course, with the GOP in control of the Senate, Wyden has a slim chance of turning this idea into actual legislation, but it draws more attention to the presumptive Republican nominee’s lack of public tax returns. (Front-runner Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton as well as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders have released their returns.)

Trump has said IRS audits have prevented the release of his returns, but he also told George Stephanopoulos in a “Good Morning America” interview earlier this month, “It’s none of your business,” and, “I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible.”
...................................................................................................................................................................

"Both of my morsels of advice may be hard to swallow. ... But swallow it you must — not just for the good of the Democratic Party, but for the good of the nation." Please, please follow this advice.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Sanders has been telling a basic truth about income inequality but his solutions lie in the realm of fantasy. Even worse however is his pollyannish worldview, which befits rural Vermont but has no relevance whatsoever for a global power which has responsibilities beyond restoring manufacturing jobs lost overseas (especially since Robots and computers replace workers as well and will continue to do so.) In short, he is a nostalgia candidate and not a real one.
*  If Trump becomes POTUS, not only will progressives lose the battle, they will also lose the war. A Trump presidency is not going to usher in a progressive backlash that changes America for the better; on the contrary, electing Trump will empower the right-winger's like never before. Much to the detriment of America and the American people.
*  The first step for Berners is to admit that the 8 years of the Obama Admin will have produced tremendous LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE victories worth protecting instead of repealing.
*  Interesting to note how the Bernie Sanders or no one's and/or those preaching hate and vitriol towards the democrats and Hillary Clinton are from the demographic of those who will be the least adversely affected by a Trump presidency. Just an observation.
*  So you're willing to pay the price of a Trump presidency?
    *   I am. 100%. I would rather the whole place be burned to the ground than spend one more second of my life tacitly endorsing this oligarchy by pulling the blue lever just cause it's blue.
       *  that's pretty thoughtless and selfish thinking. You may be willing to pay the price for a Trump presidency but millions of Americans are not.  You may not care if the place burns to the ground, but millions of Americans do care.
       *  And burned to the ground could actually be a reality with Trump if he becomes POTUS. We could have a nuclear war because another world leader said he wears a wig. Be careful what you wish for because your wish just might come true of being burned to the ground.
    *  agreed. The Bernie-or-Busters seem to care more about their political and ideological purity than they do about all the harm that a Trump presidency would bring to millions of black and brown Americans.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Advice for Divided Democrats
By Robert Reich, May 27, 2016

With the Democratic primaries grinding to a bitter end, I have suggestions for both Clinton and Sanders supporters that neither will like.

First, my advice to Clinton supporters: Don’t try to drum Bernie Sanders out of the race before Hillary Clinton officially gets the nomination (if she in fact does get it).

Some of you say Bernie should bow out because he has no chance of getting the nomination, and his continuing candidacy is harming Hillary Clinton’s chances.

It’s true that Bernie’s chances are slim, but it’s inaccurate to say he has no chance. If you consider only pledged delegates, who have been selected in caucuses and primaries, he’s not all that far behind Hillary Clinton. And the upcoming primary in California — the nation’s most populous state — could possibly alter Sanders’s and Clinton’s relative tallies.

My calculation doesn’t include so-called “superdelegates” — Democratic office holders and other insiders who haven’t been selected through primaries and caucuses. But in this year of anti-establishment fury, it would be unwise for Hillary Clinton to relay on superdelegates to get her over the finish line.

Sanders should stay in the race also because he has attracted a large number of young people and independents. Their passion, excitement, and enthusiasm are critically important to Hillary Clinton’s success, if she’s the nominee, as well the success of other Democrats this year, and, more fundamentally, to the future of American politics.

Finally and not the least, Sanders has been telling a basic truth about the American political economic system — that growing inequality of income and wealth has led inexorably to the increasing political power of those at the top, including big corporations and Wall Street banks. And that political power has stacked the deck in their favor, leading to still wider inequality.

Nothing important can be accomplished — reversing climate change, creating true equal opportunity, overcoming racism, rebuilding the middle class, having a sane and sensible foreign policy — until we reclaim our democracy from the moneyed interests. The longer Bernie Sanders is on stage to deliver this message, the better.

Next, my advice for Sanders supporters: Be prepared to work hard for Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination.

Some of you say that refusing to fight for or even vote for Hillary will show the Democratic political establishment why it must change its ways.

But the “Democratic political establishment” is nothing but a bunch of people, many of them big donors and fundraisers occupying comfortable and privileged positions, who won’t even be aware that you’ve decided to sit it out — unless Hillary loses to Donald Trump.

Which brings me to those of you who say there’s no real difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

That’s just plain wrong. Trump has revealed himself to be a narcissistic, xenophobic, hatemonger who, if elected, would legitimize bigotry, appoint Supreme Court justices with terrible values, and have direct access to the button that could set off a nuclear war.

Hillary may not possess Bernie Sanders’s indignation about the rigging of our economy and democracy, or be willing to go as far in remedying it, but she’s shown herself a capable and responsible leader.

Some of you agree a Trump presidency would be a disaster but claim it would galvanize a forceful progressive movement in response.

That’s unlikely. Rarely if ever in history has a sharp swing to the right moved the political pendulum further back in the opposite direction. Instead, it tends to move the “center” rightward, as did Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

Besides, Trump could do huge and unalterable damage to America and the world in the meantime.

Finally, some of you say even if Hillary is better than Trump, you’re tired of choosing the “lesser of two evils,” and you’re going to vote your conscience by either writing Bernie’s name in, or voting for the Green Party candidate, or not voting at all.

I can’t criticize anyone for voting their conscience, of course. But your conscience should know that a decision not to vote for Hillary, should she become the Democratic nominee, is a de facto decision to help Donald Trump.

Both of my morsels of advice may be hard to swallow. Many Hillary supporters don’t want Bernie to keep campaigning, and many Bernie supporters don’t want to root for Hillary if she gets the nomination.

But swallow it you must — not just for the good of the Democratic Party, but for the good of the nation.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"Can this rationally be called an issue in this presidential campaign? No. But in our hyperpoliticized world, reason doesn’t matter."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Bravo on the only communication I've see that puts this in perspective and isn't totally insane. People will believe what they want to, but thank you for a honest and grounded article. Just wish more people see this for what it is.
*  I really enjoyed reading this article. There was another article I read on newsweek several months ago stating exact same thing. The media is making a big deal out of this, so is the Republican party, even though Colin Power did the same exact thing. I hope that this is the end of it, but that is not going to happen. I don't know why people hate this lady so much. I wish that someone can response and let me know why.
*  I read the report. This article is accurate.
*  Like Andy Borowitz said in the New Yorker -- is rather have someone with email problems than someone who sounds like Hitler on a daily basis. I'm disappointed she didn't have extra approvals only because she knew she was running for POTUS at some point and she served up something for republicans to turn into a big deal. Even Obama has defended her that there was no malicious intent, which is a determinant for what the FBI is interested in.  I appreciate the facts here - let's move on to the guy who just sold his soul to the NRA, just said he'll tear up the Paris Clomate Accords, thinks Obama is weak on military intervention, just have a very conservative list of SCOTUS appointees to appease McConnell, and is generally a frighteningly thin-skinned demagogue. Could we please focus on him?
*  Since all of this started, I haven't heard one conversation with any of my family, relatives, coworkers, friends, strangers in stores, walking a sidewalks or anywhere regarding this. Nor have I even thought about it myself or talked about it. I knew from the start that this is nothing but a B/S attempt by a losing GOP. For anyone who disagrees, I say read this great article; that is, if you CAN read.
*   Let me make myself clear here. What I meant is State Department are the one to be called scandal not Hillary. Their leaders knew about Hillary's email server setup right from day way. They provided the necessary items to setup the email server. They didn't practice due care and due diligent that's why they should be rather to be called scandal, not Hillary. This wouldn't happen if the state department had enforced their security policy properly. No one is exempted from following the security policy. Therefore, state department leaders are the one should be seen as disgrace or misdeed, not Hillary. That's why I said a lot people don't understand what this email scandal really is.
...................................................................................................................................................................
THE SCANDAL OVER CLINTON’S EMAILS STILL ISN’T A SCANDAL
By Kurt Eichenwald, May 27, 2016

I really don’t want to write this column. I know that just from reading the headline, a large number of people will immediately start wailing that I’m a Hillary Clinton partisan, and they won’t bother to read even this first paragraph. I also know that plenty of journalists paralyzed by groupthink will attack what I have to say.

Ah, to hell with it. Here’s the point: The recent report released by the inspector general of the State Department shows that, on the topics it analyzes, there is no Clinton email scandal. (The report doesn’t deal with classification issues.) And all the heavy breathing in news reports that there is something important here is bunk. Yes, the report shows that Clinton, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the senior staff of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice used personal email accounts for daily work communications. (Rice didn’t use emails at all.) And yes, it shows plenty of people in Democratic and Republican administrations made some mistakes in following protocol for emails. But once you start digging deeper, what’s clear is that the State Department’s management of the email systems and procedures was a long-standing Keystone Kops operation, which is why so many intelligent people on both sides of the political aisle screwed up—but screwed up in ways that largely do not matter.

Before getting into details of what the 79-page report actually says, I need to make a few appeals to reason. Does anyone really believe that a senior government official is going to come into office and read the volumes of entries in the Federal Register, manuals and memos on emails, computers and document preservation, and then make decisions on which procedures to implement? To give a sense of scope, the primary document dealing with functions and administrative issues at the State Department is the Foreign Affairs Manual, a 16-volume doorstop that is rarely read without using an online agency search engine because of its size. Based on results from that search engine, the manual discusses email issues 346 times in 13 different volumes, and that makes up just a tiny percent of the total information it contains.

Does anyone truly think that the first thing the person charged with managing all foreign relations for the United States will do is spend a few months reading the equivalent of an encyclopedia for administrative and technical rules, rather than expecting the staff members charged with those responsibilities to handle it? (Also note that because of the amount of information involved, those duties are divided up among a large number of offices in the department.) Do people believe these officials are sophisticated enough to know anything about email other than how to type? (Clinton is a notorious technological imbecile, and Powell still has an AOL email account.) The absurdity of this belief—which Democrats seem to believe only applies to a Republican and Republicans seem to believe only applies to a Democrat—is so self-evident that it is astonishing there are people who espouse it with such vehemence.

Second, does anyone really believe voters will base their decisions at the ballot box on whether the documents in question were preserved strictly following the mandated procedures? Will anyone except partisans really care about a technical error that created no harm and had no nefarious motive? Would this column or an article declaring the email imbroglio to be a massive scandal actually change a vote?

Third, does anyone—including the inspector general—read the many documents that have already been released regarding this topic? A lot of the information in the new report was disclosed in a February letter by the IG—a fact not mentioned in most of the current news articles—and answers to questions the IG said it could not resolve are in documents disclosed by congressional investigators last year.

And finally, why do partisans waste time on nothing-burger Clinton “scandals”—emails, Benghazi—when there are actual issues about her that are so deserving of criticism, such as the disastrous Libya policy she championed as secretary of state? Is it simply that “email” and “Benghazi” fit on bumper stickers, while “substantive negative consequences and regional chaos from the intervention in Libya” can’t even be limned in a tweet? Or is it that many of the people frothing about Clinton are so uninformed that they don’t even know the administration got involved in the Libyan civil war, much less the result?

Here’s what this new inspector general’s report shows: When senior State Department officials swam in the deep pool of email rules, there were basically no lifeguards on duty. The office for ensuring compliance with the federal rules on communications—staffed by the people who were supposed to be reading all the Federal Register procedures and policy statements—has been a horrifically underfunded, understaffed and ineffective group for many years, starting long before Clinton arrived at the State Department. As the report says, “Longstanding systemic weaknesses related to electronic messages and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State.… The Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications.’’

That means there were problems—lots of them. Many employees at the State Department not only used personal email accounts, they refused to use their government-issued laptops because they were lousy. A 2011 email cited by the report underscored this point. Written by the department’s former policy planning director and sent to Clinton, it said, “State’s technology is so antiquated that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop and even high officials routinely end up using their home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively.”

With out-of-date equipment and poor support, plenty of mistakes were made. A good example is when Powell had a private internet line installed in his office so he could use his personal email account on his home laptop. Under the rules, the new line shouldn’t have been put in, but it was. Powell, like every other secretary of state, never read the entire Foreign Affairs Manual; he dealt with foreign crises, wars and international diplomacy while depending on the relevant staff to determine whether it was appropriate to put a jack in his wall.

Clinton’s personal email process was a far less clear-cut as a potential violation—and may not have been at all. The Foreign Affairs Manual allowed for the use of personal email accounts under certain conditions, but never described what those conditions were. (That is why one of the recommendations from the inspector general’s report is for the State Department to issue “enhanced and more frequent guidance on the permissible use of personal email accounts to conduct official business.”)

If Clinton’s account arrangement for nonclassified emails did not fit within the confines of that rule, none of the experts told her so. Clinton had groups of people responsible for overseeing her email operations, including one specifically dedicated to the job with the title "Special Adviser to the Deputy Chief Information Officer." He worked for Clinton throughout her entire term as secretary of state. In addition, the chief operations officer knew about the account, as did the deputy chief of staff for operations.

Then there was the division specifically charged with overseeing all communications systems for the Office of the Secretary and Its Executive Secretariat, or S/ES in State Department lingo, which included Clinton and all of her direct staff. The group responsible for email, computers and the like is called S/ES Office of Information Resources Management, better known as S/ES-IRM. As the report makes clear, officials in S/ES-IRM knew about Clinton’s email arrangement and were in frequent contact with the official directly in charge of maintaining security on Clinton’s private server. Near the beginning of her time in office, the division prepared memos about her use of a private server, which was in the basement of her guarded home. S/ES-IRM staff met multiple times with the special adviser in charge of the private email account and server, and sent emails to Clinton’s senior staff describing technical issues that arose with the system and the actions taken to resolve them. The special adviser also met with the department’s Cyber Threat Analysis Division to discuss the email system and security issues. The bottom line is that Clinton’s email arrangement was not some dark secret—the staffers who spent their careers learning the sections of the Foreign Affairs Manual that relate to emails knew all about it. And the report cites nothing to suggest Clinton or her staff were told by the experts that there was any reason she shouldn’t use the system.

That doesn’t mean there were not concerns. In particularly telling incidents depicted in the inspector general's report, two staff members of the S/ES-IRM met at separate times with the division’s director to discuss problems they anticipated regarding Clinton’s email system. In one meeting, one staff member expressed worries that information on Clinton’s account could contain records that needed to be preserved to meet federal requirements. (It did—more on that later.) According to the report, the director replied that the personal system had been reviewed and approved by department legal staff and that the staffer should not discuss it anymore. (The report says there is no evidence that the department’s lawyers reviewed the system.) The second staff member who met with the director raised concerns about the server; the staffer’s boss replied that the division’s job was to support the secretary of state and that the topic should not be discussed again.

Should someone around Clinton have been told about these concerns? Probably. Was anyone told? Nope—at least not based on the information contained in the report. The inspector general writes that Clinton never sought permission from legal counsel for the email arrangement, nor did Powell or Rice's senior staff. After all, when you go to a new job and the technology specialists set up your systems, do you then run to the company’s lawyers to make sure what they are doing complies with the rules? Or do you depend on them to tell you if there is a problem with the system?

Then there is the issue of security. The one thing that seems clear from the report is that Clinton’s email system was more secure than the one at the State Department. Before delving into that, though, one of the biggest misconceptions about this email “scandal” has to be dispelled: Neither Clinton nor any other senior official cleared for dealing with classified information has only one email system. One is used for workaday business—memos, drafts, information to department employees, questions and answers between individuals—and that is the type used by Clinton, Powell, and Rice’s senior staff that has been reviewed by the inspector general. The second email system, for materials designated as classified, has nothing to do with this controversy. It uses a highly restricted, compartmented information facility, or what is known in intelligence circles as a SCIF. Most senior officials who deal with classified information have a SCIF in their offices and their homes guarded 24 hours a day by physical and technical security teams. In other words, this widely held belief that Clinton and Powell were emailing information classified as top-secret on personal accounts is hooey. (Yes, some emails not marked as classified have been retroactively deemed as such; this happens all the time.)

As for the department’s unclassified system, the inspector general's report demonstrates that it was horribly insecure, and that hackers obtained terabytes worth of documents out of it; on the other hand, Clinton’s email system was quite secure and, when evidence emerged that someone was trying to hack in, the security officer overseeing the server immediately shut it down, then notified the relevant officials at State. In other words, while boxcars of documents were digitally pulled out of the agency, there is no evidence a single email was snagged out of Clinton’s server. So it could be the Clinton arrangement didn’t follow the security procedures laid out in the federal regulations—the inspector general did not reach a conclusion as to whether it did or not—but, as often happens, private security contractors did a better job than the government.

The final issue is document retention. Under federal rules, all government documents must be preserved, although there are a variety of ways that could have been done in the last decade. (Powell preserved nothing from his personal email account, so those records are lost forever.) To comply with the rules, Clinton could have sent her emails to a preservation system notorious for being time-consuming and unnecessarily complex, or she could have printed them out and turned them over to the department before she left. She didn’t do that—instead, she printed them out and turned them over to the department after she left. And from that we get a scandal?

Finally, the report suggests that emails from Clinton’s personal account sent in the earliest days of her tenure have been lost forever, since none could be found. Even without a day’s worth of work—and the inspector general seems to have spent far more than that on this topic—anyone keeping up with this email mess would know that they never existed. As documents released by congressional investigators last year showed, Clinton used her Senate email address for personal communications when she first started as secretary of state. They exist, and Clinton should turn them over, if she hasn’t already.

And that’s why the Clinton email scandal isn’t a scandal. Underfunded, understaffed offices responsible for compliance didn’t do a great job, leading to potential mistakes by many senior State officials who were in office long before Clinton; poorly written rules allowed for the use of personal email accounts; the experts were fully aware of the arrangements but raised no concerns to her or her staff; documents were preserved but not in the precise way dictated by the rules. Can this rationally be called an issue in this presidential campaign? No. But in our hyperpoliticized world, reason doesn’t matter. So let the attacks on this column begin.
...................................................................................................................................................................

GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out)

...................................................................................

"It’s always a mess with [Trump]"

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  How about this for a novel idea for Trump: he should spend his and his campaign's time understanding economy, world politics etc and then work to develop and articulate actual policies. The mudslinging is just an attempt to hide the fact there is no substance in anything he says. And his supporters don't seem to care either. You could put a speaking donkey in front of them as long as it blamed all of world's problems on some different demographic than them...
*  I don't understand how his rabid supporters can listen to him an dnot feel insulted. He clearly thinks they're idiots. He as much said so with his "uneducated" comments and the fact that he doesn't think enough of their intelligence to stick to any one story. He just says he changed his mind or didn't mean it. Look, if Trump really speaks to you, face up to the fact, you're probably not that bright. I didn't like Cruz or Rubio, but at least they were real politicians who would have advanced the GOP's horrible agenda. Trump is just punking people and they're too stupid to catch on.
*  Of course. It is so much easier to sling dirt than actually articulate a policy.
*  Another misdirection instead of having morals or policies.
   *  Drumpie and morals are not a good match. He uses the system, and then turns around and trashes everyone because oh wait a) he did not get his way and b) everyone else is at fault. this small handed man has a temperament of a toddler.
*  Give it up Trump, the Clinton's skeletons have all been picked clean over the last couple of decades - your's on the other hand, hmmmmm.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how the rest of this election campaign will go - Trump making very-tired personal attacks instead of any well-articulated policy, while Clinton sticks to picking apart Trump's brain fartz. No need for Clinton to descend to his level, Trump's own less-than-desirable history, his big mouth and the press will do the rest for her.  I think that the we are going to see more and more epic tantrums, wildly incoherent rants and threats of lawsuits by the big man-baby over these next few months.  NPD on crack.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Oops! Trump campaign sends email seeking dirt to reporter instead of adviser
By Dylan Stableford, May 25, 2016

Donald Trump has been criticized in recent days for dredging up decades-old Clinton conspiracy theories. And now it appears that the presumptive Republican nominee’s campaign misfired while researching one of them.

Politico obtained an email from Trump campaign adviser Michael Caputo to the Republican National Committee asking a researcher to provide information on the Whitewater real estate scandal.

“Work up information on HRC/Whitewater as soon as possible,” the email read. “This is for immediate use and for the afternoon talking points process.”

Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks, who was copied on the email, responded instead to Politico reporter Marc Caputo — no relation to the GOP consultant with whom he shares a surname.

Hicks did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

According to Marc Caputo, it’s not the first time someone has mistakenly emailed him instead of the Republican consultant.

“It’s happened before over the years intermittently — not with the Trump campaign but with other campaigns,” Caputo told Yahoo News. The last time it did, Caputo recalled, was when he was a reporter for the Miami Herald and Michael Caputo was working for a Florida state senate campaign.

Caputo said he believes the email gaffe was a legitimate “misfire.” He said he wasn’t surprised that the Trump campaign sought information on Whitewater, the real estate investment company the Clintons formed before Bill Clinton became governor of Arkansas. After he was elected president, the Justice Department investigated whether the former governor used his influence to secure a $300,000 loan for the company. (Several of Clinton associates were later convicted, but the Clintons were never charged.)

Just this week, the Washington Post published an interview with Trump in which he invoked the Whitewater scandal while musing about the “very fishy” death of former Clinton White House aide Vince Foster. According to multiple investigations, Foster committed suicide, but conspiracy theories have persisted about his death.

“It’s the one thing with her, whether it’s Whitewater or whether it’s Vince or whether it’s Benghazi. It’s always a mess with Hillary,” Trump said.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"'House Republicans' thirst to discriminate against the LGBT community is so strong that they are willing to vote down their own appropriations bill in order to prevent progress over bigotry,' ... Pelosi said."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Religious nut jobs
*  It is time to take our red white & blue Stars & Stripes back from these Right Wing self-appointed "spokesmen for God". - If they want to hide behind something, let them hide behind multi-million dollar churches that worship untaxed cash & political influence above almighty God, - let them hide behind their NRA's banner conning million$ annually that the Army is after their hunting rifles, - let them hide behind manufactured lies concerning family clinics selling body parts, - let them even hide behind Cruz-fed ignorant lies about Obama last summer trying to invade Texas to take away their guns so he can declare martial law to stay in office a 3rd term... But it is long-past the time that they stopped hiding behind OUR American Flag and claiming it only belongs to them.
*  The GOP is trying to establish their Christian Sharia law system in the USA again. Don't let them.
*  Biblical law is not US law.
*  Still nobody getting baptized around here. This is TV evangelism Christianity. Put your hand on the radio and put ten dollars in an envelope. I don't think TV evangelism was even thought of when Christ preached.
*   God is an anthropomorphized explanation of the universe. God is to explanations of the universe as Bugs Bunny is to rabbits. God is the product of curiosity and egocentrism. Curiosity led to the need to explain existence. Egocentrism led to the anthropomorphization of the explanation..
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bible verse prompts GOP walkout after LGBT vote labeled a sin
By Scott Wong and Mike Lillis, May 26, 2016

A House conservative went after dozens of fellow Republicans on Thursday with suggestions that they'd sinned for backing an anti-discrimination proposal against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. 

Rep. Rick Allen, a Georgia freshman, launched the GOP's regular policy meeting in the Capitol basement by reading a Bible passage condemning homosexuality and suggesting that supporters of the LGBT provision, which passed the House the night before, were defying Christian tenets, attendees said.

Several Republicans walked out of the room in disgust.

"It was f---ing ridiculous," said one GOP lawmaker, who was in the room and supported the LGBT provision.

A GOP leadership aide offered a similar verdict. 

"A lot of members were clearly uncomfortable and upset," the aide said.

Allen's office did not respond to a request for comment Thursday. A spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) declined to comment.

The LGBT language has been a thorn in the side of Republican leaders this month as they've tried to move through a series of government spending bills.

Sponsored by Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), the provision stipulates that nothing in the underlying spending bills can undermine President Obama's executive order barring discrimination by government contractors based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Last week, the provision had won enough Republican support to pass as part of a military construction bill, but GOP leaders held the vote open and urged supporters to switch their votes. The strategy worked, and the measure failed 213-212. Twenty-nine Republicans voted in favor.

Maloney had better luck this week, when he offered his amendment as part of an energy spending bill. The measure passed late Wednesday night by a vote of 223 to 195, with 43 Republicans joining every Democrat in supporting the provision. 

The victory was short-lived, however, as the amendment proved to be a poison pill that led scores of Republicans to oppose the underlying energy bill, which suffered a crushing 112-305 defeat on the floor Thursday. One hundred and thirty Republicans voted against the package, while just six Democrats supported it.

Republicans were quick to accuse Democrats of playing political games by insisting on the Maloney amendment and then opposing the broader bill after it was attached.

"This is not about LGBT rights. It's about shipwrecking the appropriations process," Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) said after Thursday's vote.

The Democrats have a different view, accusing the Republicans of promoting discrimination by insisting the Maloney language be excised. 

"House Republicans' thirst to discriminate against the LGBT community is so strong that they are willing to vote down their own appropriations bill in order to prevent progress over bigotry," Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... as long as TV hosts challenge Trump and his surrogates like Cuomo did Tuesday, at least his incredible hypocrisy will be on view for all to see."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump's jaw-dropping hypocrisy over Bill Clinton
By Dean Obeidallah, May 24, 2016

Hypocrisy is not a strong enough word to describe Donald Trump's recent attacks on Bill Clinton's past alleged sexual misconduct from the 1990s. We really need to come up with a new term and maybe call it "pulling a Trump."

Who could have ever predicted that Trump, who had publicly defended Bill Clinton in the 1990s when these allegations first surfaced, and even cruelly slammed the women who made the accusations, would now try to make Bill's conduct an issue?

Thankfully, Tuesday on CNN's "New Day," Chris Cuomo pressed Trump campaign surrogate and lawyer Michael Cohen on this issue in what turned out to be truly a master class in cross-examination. Cuomo started out by sharing his view that Trump raising this issue was "bad for him" since Trump "defended Bill Clinton for years" against these very claims.

Cuomo specifically noted that Trump had in the past said the "same allegations you guys are talking about now were a waste of time, were wrong, were hollow, that Bill Clinton was a terrific guy, that he was a great president, that the impeachment was wrong."

The CNN host further exposed Trump's hypocrisy by highlighting that Trump had not only defended Bill Clinton, but Trump went a step further. He had publicly shamed Clinton's accusers. For example, Cuomo noted that Trump called Paula Jones, who alleged Clinton sexually harassed her, a "loser." And in regard to Linda Tripp from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Trump had called her a "lying loser" and "the personification of evil."

Cohen's response was why the word facepalm was invented. He told Cuomo that Trump only said those remarks because "he was being a true friend," adding, "it didn't matter to him at that point in time."

Hmmm, so to Trump, publicly shaming Clinton's accusers as "liars" and "evil" is just what friends do for each other? Interesting idea of friendship.

Cohen then tried to stop the beating Cuomo was inflicting on him by begging to talk about more current issues. OK, let's do just that. If Trump truly believed that Clinton was a sexual predator who assaulted numerous women, then why did Trump passionately praise Bill in a 2012 interview on Fox News?

And I don't mean Trump offered a few niceties in a perfunctory manner. Rather, Trump was like a gushing schoolboy with a crush on both Hillary and Bill Clinton in this must-see interview.

First Trump stated that Hillary, who he now calls an "enabler" of Bill's infidelity, was "a terrific woman." Adding, "I mean I'm a little biased because I've known her for years."

And then, in regard to Bill, he gushed, "I've known her and her husband for years and I really like them both a lot." He went on to say that Bill had just days before the interview made a speech at Trump's Mar-a-Lago private club that was "very well received." Trump then praised Bill again, calling him "a really good guy."

Of course, this raises the question of who allows a person you truly believe is a serial sexual predator to give a speech at your private club? Add to that, who would donate over $100,000 to that guy's foundation?

But that's exactly what Trump did with his donation to the Clinton Foundation, a not-for-profit organization started by Bill after he left the White House. (It's unclear the exact amount Trump donated but the Clinton Foundation's website indicates it's somewhere between $100,000 and $250,000.00.)

And that doesn't even include the seven donations that Trump made to Hillary's past campaigns for the U.S. Senate and even to her 2008 presidential run.

What also makes this line of attack by Trump so bizarre is his well-documented record of abusively sexist comments. And we aren't just talking years ago, when as Megyn Kelly pointed out at a debate, Trump publicly called women he disliked, "fat pigs," "dogs," "slobs," and "disgusting animals." During this campaign he mocked Carly Fiorina's face saying, "Would anyone vote for that?" And of course Trump called Kelly a "bimbo" and suggested she was menstruating during the first GOP debate.

Is Trump crazy like a fox? Or is he simply a guy who can't help but angrily respond to any attack upon on him and one without any master plan? Who knows, but as long as TV hosts challenge Trump and his surrogates like Cuomo did Tuesday, at least his incredible hypocrisy will be on view for all to see.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... 'an equal division is essentially the same as a denial of review.'" Got that, GOP?

...................................................................................................................................................................
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 8 is not a good number
By Ariane de Vogue, May 26, 2016

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Thursday that having only eight justices "is not a good number for a multi-member court."

The comments mark the furthest a sitting justice has gone, since the sudden death of the late Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year, to signal that the court would function better with a fully staffed bench.

Ginsburg was giving an end of the term report to an audience of mostly judges of the Second Circuit Judicial Conference in New York. A copy of her remarks were released by the court.

She mentioned the fact that the court had deadlocked 4-4 twice so far."That means no opinions and no precedential value," she said, adding "an equal division is essentially the same as a denial of review."

The justice's comments echoed those of progressive groups who are urging the Senate to move ahead with confirmation hearings for Judge Merrick Garland. Senate republicans are refusing to hold hearings until after the next election.

Ginsburg noted that one of the 4-4 cases came in a case concerning public sector unions, a case she called on of the term's "most closely watched."

In her summary, she quoted statistics about the 67 cases the court has granted this term out of more than 6,000 petitions. So far the Court has handed down opinions in 42 cases. She also picked out statistics concerning particular justices. Justice Stephen Breyer was known for asking one of the longest questions of the term, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor was "once again" the justice who asked the most questions at oral arguments.

"Justice Thomas, after a 10-year silence, astonished all in attendance by asking nine questions, all in the same case," she said. She also reminded the audience that at one point, a lawyer mistakenly called her Justice O'Connor -- a reference to the first female Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "The first woman on the Supreme Court retired a decade ago, yet confusion of the two of us lingers," she said.

The bulk of Ginsburg's comments were dedicated to a remembrance of Scalia, who died suddenly in February and who was her best friend on the bench despite the fact that they were ideological opposites.

"Justice Scalia was a man of many talents, a jurist of captivating brilliance, high spirits, and quick wit, possessed of a rare talent for making even the most somber judge smile."

"The Court is a paler place without him," she said.

At the end of her remarks she said she looked forward to addressing the Circuit conference again next year. "I anticipate reporting on the decisions of a full bench," she said.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... the Republican National Convention has never, with the exception of 1976, forced delegates to vote against their conscience. ... [Trump will] need a majority, something he hasn't managed so far in caucus and primary votes."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  I don't like Hillary, but I don't like Trump more.
    *  Ready, the scary thing with that statement is, thats whats going to decide the winner. Not choosing the candidate you want, but the candidate you hate the least. What the hell has HAPPENED to us?
*  I will leave the Republican Party--forever--me and millions of other disaffected conservatives. I will leave the country to go to the dogs (liberals). Phuque it.
   *  And you think donnie is a conservative? He flip flops more than anyone, and it all depends on who the audience is. You conservatives need to decide what you want your party/platform to look like, and then start a 3rd party.  My ideal conservative party would be: small government; fiscally conservative; socially neutral (no bible thumpers allowed); strong but reasonable defense; environmentally friendly; energy self sufficient
*  The article states that delegates can vote their conscience. What conscience? Almost all Republicans have stated that it is more important to win and not important who the candidate is. He has insulted almost all of them because he knows that they have no integrity. They are politicians.
*   Trump is not really the will of the people; his percentage of the public vote is less than his percentage of the delegate vote due to a lot of wins in "winner take all" states. This is rarely spoken of.  Second, Don the Con duped most Republican voters into believing that he is a Republican; which he clearly is not. A platform of higher minimum wage, higher taxes on the "rich", higher tariffs, Fed funding of Planned Parenthood and boys in your daughter's bathroom is not very Republican. The list goes on.  So he has the delegates which don't represent the majority of Republican voters and who most who actually voted for him are not aware of what he actually stands for.  In reality Trump is to the left of Clinton on most issues except his "build-a-wall" tripe, which we all know he will never do. He has always voted Democrat, funded the most liberal Democrats his entire adult life and his entire family are registered Democrats and could not even vote for him in the NY primary.  No tranquility electing Trump. He duped stupid and uninformed Americans. If you want a Republican, this election you will have to vote Libertarian. And if the Libertarian candidate can get 5% of the vote neither Horrible Hillary nor Don the Con will have the majority and the election will go to Congress who will hopefully elect a real Republican or at least more of one than liberal Don.  Your stupidity is sickening.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump hasn't closed the deal—WE still decide who the nominee will be
By Curly Haugland and Sean Parnell, May 26, 2016

Delegates to the Republican National Convention will gather in less than two months and are expected by most to nominate businessman Donald Trump for president. But it's not quite so simple or certain – Trump will still have one last sales job ahead of him, persuading the delegates to choose him at the convention before he can claim the nomination.

This is because each and every delegate has complete freedom to vote their conscience at the convention, including who the party's nominee should be. This may come as a surprise to many, particularly those who are reading about Trump's recent win in the Washington state primary and how close he is to "clinching" the Republican nomination.

But the nomination cannot be "clinched" or won until the delegates actually vote. And even if delegates were obligated to obey the "will of the people" as expressed through primaries and caucuses, Trump's claim on the nomination would still be dubious at this point – at present he has only won roughly 43 percent of all primary and caucus votes cast, and would need to net more than 3.5 million voters in the June 6 primaries to win even a bare majority of all votes cast.

But it will in the end be the delegates to the Republican National Convention, which has protected the right of delegates to vote their consciences since the first convention in 1856, who decide if Trump will be the party's nominee.

The first Republican convention adopted rules requiring each delegation's chair to announce the vote of the delegates, which was understood to mean each delegate's vote was to be announced and recorded as they wished. The 1860 and 1868 conventions saw delegates stand up and challenge the votes announced by their delegation chairs, and in all cases the convention recorded the delegates' votes according to their wishes and regardless of any state party rules or instructions to bind delegates votes.

At the 1876 convention, there was extensive debate over whether to accept the binding of delegates, and in the end the delegates voted to reject binding. At the 1880 convention, language was added to the convention rules to block any and all efforts to bind delegates, and on over 200 occasions since these conscience protections have been invoked, including against state laws attempting to bind delegates to primary results.

In 1976, the campaign of President Gerald Ford managed to get the convention rule amended to permit binding of delegates as part of a strategy to block former California Gov. Ronald Reagan from getting the nomination. In 1980 this language was removed, and the temporary rules for the 2016 convention include almost exactly the same language as the rule first added in 1880.

Whether directed by state party rules or state law, the Republican National Convention has never, with the exception of 1976, forced delegates to vote against their conscience. So if Trump wants to be the Republican nominee, he will have one last sales job of persuading the delegates to nominate him – and this time he'll need a majority, something he hasn't managed so far in caucus and primary votes.
...................................................................................................................................................................